The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

As many of you on here know, I am a big baseball, and American Football fan. While I'm not much into any other sports, I still appreciate arguments involving sports. These arguments can include the best teams/players, how a game is won, analyzing statistics, and just flat out arguing of why a team should/shouldn't exist. That's the beauty of being a sports fanatic.

The problem is, so many people use very common arguments for team sports which are irrelevant, invalid, or just flat out absurd. Some of these arguments can be used for solo sports such as golf, Singles Tennis, auto racing, swimming, boxing, wrestling, etc., but when it comes to team sports, they simply don't work. If you're ready to read the list of stupid arguments, keep going. When you read them, you will notice every argument pop up on your local Twitter/Facebook feed, or ESPN news reel on a daily basis.

Argument: The "Homer Fan" Who Defends His/Her Team No Matter What

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

I'm not sure where the term "Homer Fan" came from(The Simpsons maybe?), but this is a fan who shows such extreme favoritism for his/her team, that this particular fan defends their team no matter what.

I don't see this as much in baseball, or hockey, as much as I see it in football, and basketball it seems. For instance, in the NFL, there is a continuous debate as to who the "greatest quarterback of all time" is. Many of the fans are Homer Fans, and it looks something like this: Patriots fans will say Tom Brady is the "GOAT", 49ers fans will say Joe Montana is the GOAT, Colts/Broncos fans will say Peyton Manning is the GOAT, Steelers fans will say Terry Bradshaw is the GOAT, Saints fans will say Drew Brees is the GOAT, Packers fans will say Aaron Rodgers is the GOAT, and the arguments continue. In the NBA, Cavaliers fans are arguing LeBron James is the GOAT, while Bulls fans will say Michael Jordan is the GOAT.

Aside from competition, they will defend their favorite players, from on-field antics to criminal behavior. For example, back in 2010, my favorite team the Reds got in a huge brawl with the Cardinals. But I even admitted that the player who instigated the fight(Brandon Phillips) who was on my favorite team should have been suspended. I've seen Homer Fans defend the players on their teams for on-field antics, cheating, off-field criminal behavior, you name it.

Please-just admit your team isn't perfect, and can do no wrong, and has no faults. Even if you have the best team in your particular sport, there are always flaws.

As a Reds fan, I think Homer Bailey is the best Pitcher of all time!

Argument: Defense Wins Games

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

This argument is universal in team sports these days. The reason why you don't hear "offense wins games" is because offense in sports is already overrated(I'll admit that much). However, this "defense wins games" argument is over-blown these days, and it seems to be more, and more common.

Basically, it's as simple as it sounds: Defense is either the sole reason, or main reason a team wins a game. Let's attack the first notion: It's not the only reason a team wins a game, as that's literally impossible. In baseball, if no team shows up for pitching, or defense, the game can't go on, and will be forfeited. In football, if no defense shows up, the Quarterback would just throw it to an open Wide Receiver, and get a Touchdown every time. I don't need to go through every sport, but you get the jist: There has to be an offense to win a game. Period.

Now, onto the other notion: Is defense the main reason a team wins a game? Not necessarily. For instance, in the MLB, there are top tier defenses who don't even make it to the postseason. In the MLB for 2017, five out of the top ten defenses in baseball didn't even make the postseason. That's half. Four of those teams didn't have a winning record. The reigning World Series champion Astros were ranked 29/30 in defense in 2017.

In the NFL(or football in general), the top defenses don't necessarily win the Super Bowl, or win games either. The Patriots' are in the midst of a dynasty, and putting their cheating scandals aside for the sake of argument, they are definitely more of an offensive team than a defense team. And in the NBA, the "super-teams" are a good blend of offense, and defense-And is Sydney Crosby known for his defensive skills in the NHL?

The bottom line is, if a team is unbalanced, it more than likely won't win games. In the 2016-2017 NFL season, the Houston Texans had the number one defense in football, but one of the worst ranked offenses in football as well-and they lost in a blowout to the Patriots in the playoffs. On the other hand, a team with a number one offense, and bottom tier defense wouldn't do well either, just ask the 2016-2017 New Orleans Saints. If a team has a top tier defense, and average offense, that can work, and easily win games. Vice versa, and it can work well too.

But please, quit saying "defense wins" games. Just say: "Well balanced teams" win games.

The Bengals won 2-0 today thanks to a Safety. See, defense wins games!

Argument: If [Insert League] Has Another Lockout, They Will Lose Most of Their Fans

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

This argument was common in the NHL in 2012, when they decided to go on another lockout. Basically, it's saying the fans will become so angry at the players protesting the sport to make even more money, that the fans will quit showing up. This makes perfect sense-except, sports fans are sports fans for a reason: They like to watch sports.

The fans always come back, which is why millionaire athletes and billionaire owners get so contentious when divvying up enormous profits during the offseason. When the NFL had their lockouts in the 1960's/1970's, the sport actually became more popular afterwards. The NHL lockout in 2012-2013 was very recent, and now we have a Las Vegas NHL team which is in its inaugural season, and the NHL is more popular today than it has been in decades. After the MLB Strike in 1994, the sport peaked for attendance, mainly due to the "steroid boom", and offense era. Oddly enough, there seems to be a correlation between lockouts/strikes, and growing attendance numbers the years that follow.

The fan who says he/she won't watch if their league has another strike is like the person who keeps saying they will deactivate their GAG, or Facebook account: It makes moral sense, it looks tempting, and should be done-but at the end of the day, you aren't going to do it. Don't deny it.

Due to this Strike, baseball will fold under in the next ten years, and become obsolete. Mark my words-MLB fans, circa. 1994

Argument: Many Players/Teams Cheat, So Who Cares If [Insert Player/Team] Cheats?

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

This argument is valid for non-team sports as well. You know where I'm going with this:The New England Patriots. They have been heavily speculated(basically caught) for their 2007 antics in the Spygate scandals, and most recently, the 2014 antics in Deflategate. Sure, it's speculation, but it's speculation with an abundance of evidence as well.

The problem is, this is assuming cheating isn't wrong just because other people cheat. As a teacher, that's like me allowing a student to cheat, because I know other students are cheating. It's like saying murder isn't bad because many people murder. I could go on, and on showcasing how flawed this premise is.

I'm not saying cheaters should be outright *banned* from professional sports, but I do think they should lose their privilege to their respective Hall of Fame, and have an asterick which haunts their record forever. If I were to get caught cheating in college, it would do the same to me.

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Lance Armstrong, and Tom Brady may have cheated, but they're all sports legends.

Argument: Championship Titles Define an Individual Player

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today

I saved my most passionate argument for last.

I won't touch the NHL, or NBA too much here, because as I previously mentioned, I'm not too informed in those sports anyway. Just answer me this: Do you think Henri Richard is the best NHL player of all time? Do you think Bill Russell is the best NBA player of all time? I've heard people answer "yes" for both of them.

In the NFL, I'll set aside Deflategate, Spygate, and any other "gate" I can think of, and just focus on Tom Brady without that fuzz: Tom Brady doesn't have any individual, or semi-individual career records. He doesn't have the single-season record for Passing Yards, Touchdown Passes, or Quarterback Rating. He does have the most Super Bowl titles, with five-but Bart Starr also had five championship titles before Super Bowls existed. However, the NFL doesn't preserve its history, so they "don't count." Either way, it's a team sport. Team Sport. Team sports are known as team sports because they involve a team to win them. Despite this, Tom Brady is hailed as the "GOAT" Quarterback because he's the only one with five Super Bowl wins. His first three Super Bowl titles were defensive wins, and he won his fourth one due to an Interception by Malcolm Butler. Even in the "comeback game", he still needed his defense to step up for him to win. And don't even mention defensive player Charles Haley, as he wasn't even that great, yet, won five Super Bowl rings. I don't care if the Quarterback is the most important position on the field, and I don't care if they "lead" their team to victory. Quarterbacks can't play defense. Quarterbacks still need a beefy Offensive Line, sufficient Wide Receivers/Tight Ends, adequate coaching, and a good Running Back helps. Tom Brady has also been blessed with a legendary coach his entire career, Bill Belicheck. Quarterbacks still need at least a mediocre team to surround them for success.

In the MLB, I don't hear this argument near as much, but I've seen Yogi Berra revered as the best MLB player of all time, due to his ten World Series rings. He was on the dominant Yankees in the 1940's/50's, and part of the best team in MLB history. Yogi Berra is an easy top ten Catcher of all time-and even then, I would have a hard time calling him the best Catcher of all time. Out of all MLB players in history(even not comparing him to Pitchers), I wouldn't put him as a top 20 player. Mike Piazza is arguably a better Catcher, yet, finished his career with zero World Series titles. Zip. Nadda. He only went to the big series one time in his career, and was unfortunate enough to face the 1990's-2000's dynasty-led Yankees. With Pitchers, I don't think too many people are calling Javier Lopez the best Relief Pitcher of all time, due to him having the most World Series rings out of all career-long Relief Pitchers, with five(tied with Mariana Rivera). Ernie Banks was a Hall of Famer who never even smelled a postseason game. Not one playoff game, dammit.

At this point, you might tell me there is a correlation between elite athletes, and championship titles in all sports-even team sports. True, but this is very simple to understand: Chances are, if a team has a championship titles(especially a dynasty), that team had elite players. The Patriots in the NFL have not only had Tom Brady, but Wes Welker, Randy Moss, Rob Gronkowski, Brandin Cooks, and the legendary Belicheck during their dynasty. The 1990's Yankees were basically an all-star team. Do the Golden State Warriors not have a "Super Team" right now?

Please, quit using this argument. I don't care if you use every other argument on this list, just nulify this one.

Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino, because of rings, that's why.

The Dumbest Common Sports Arguments Used in Team Sports Today
Add Opinion
3Girl Opinion
10Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • HikerDude
    Being a fan is all about being a homer. Being "objective" is for debate club. And you're wrong about the fans coming back after lockouts. A lot do come back, but MLB has never been the same after 1994. Even on sports talk radio, baseball is rarely a topic of discussion even in summer when there isn't much else to discuss. NFL offseason trumps MLB, sadly.

    I really agree about cheaters. The whole game is in the rules. Once you go outside the rules it's not even the same game. May as well start letting guys run to first when they hit a foul ball into the stands. It pisses me off when I hear people say they don't care about steroids. It matters a shit ton if someone is using. Ask Barry Bonds, who was a good power hitter in his prime and then turned into Babe Ruth at age 40.
    Is this still revelant?
    • The MLB actually was in its prime SHORTLY after 1994, yes it was. The late 1990's, and early 2000's were some of the most popular times for the MLB, and unfortunately, a lot of this had to do with the fact there was a steroid boom. Now, it's true since the 2010's, MLB has hit rock bottom. But that had nothing to do with the lockout in 1994. If that was the case, baseball wouldn't have been so popular in the late 90's.

      Yeah, people who defend cheaters are ignorant. Would these same people be happy if they were competing against a cheater, and they were cheated out of an entrance exam for a dream job, or top school? After all, cheating "doesn't matter". right?

    • HikerDude

      No, the heyday of mlb was the 1950s. It started going downhill after that with the rise of the NFL in the 60s and 70s. The late 90s had an uptick with all the hrs being hit, but baseball isn't nearly as popular as it used to be. It was the most popular sport in the 50s by far. It's not even close to number 1 now.

      And yes, the lockout of 94 caused a huge downturn in popularity that was helped by the 98 hr chase. You need to brush up on the history of the game. Go watch Ken Burns' Baseball Series and that will explain it all.

    • I'm not necessarily saying that late 90's, and early 00's MLB was at its most popular. I'm just saying ironically, it seems like more people in that time frame were engaged with the game, despite the fact there was a strike in 1994.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • Anonymous
    That was a long read, about things I'm not really interested in. But, good job on the take.
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • CoffeeWC
    Great Job
  • Red_Dragon
    This is all true. I think at this point we have to all admit that Tom Brady is not only the greatest QB ever but also the greatest NFL player ever. I'm sorry but there's no debate in my view. He's broken every record. He's had comeback after comeback. He carries subpar teams into the the playoffs. Granted he has one of the best coaches ever... still I mean I'm sitting here watching the man throw the ball. How can that be opinion? So yeah your die hards will say such and such is this and that. The way I see it if his name doesn't begin with Tom and end with Brady then he ain't the best ever. And you gotta understand I'm an Eagles fan... noooo not because they won the SB. Because I grew up watching Mcnabb play. He wasn't the best even in his time (hell Brady still was). Hell I'd even argue to say Romo individually is at least on par with Mcnabb even though he never won anything, and that's in the Eagles own division. Not even looking outside it. Yet I became a fan regardless. I don't become a fan just based on who's the best. I go by who I like watching the most. I liked watching Mcnabb so I became a fan.

    And the Lebron Mike argument needs to stop. I like Lebron. I really do. He's the best in the NBA right now obviously. However, he's not the best even in his era let alone ever. At one time Kobe was the best in the NBA and I'd even argue to say Dwayne Wade was as well for at least a couple years. Even when Lebron was the best he still didn't show really prove he was the man until like his 2nd year with the Heat. Though that Cavs run the first time around was great as he led a shitty team to the finals. Granted this was the year after the Pistons lost Ben Wallace.

    But with that said my favorite player was always AI and Kevin Garnett. Neither were the best of their time, but I liked watching them play.

    The defense wins games thing is silly. I understand why people say it wins championships though, because typically if you are in the finals you probably have a great offense even if not a great defense. I guess the sport matters because in basketball it really depends. The Warriors are good defensively and offensively but the Cavs haven't been in the past few years and still have a title out of it. I think offense matters a little more in football. We've seen shitty teams get a star QB and suddenly they are at least a lower seeded playoff team. There are definitely other factors that matter in the NFL. In the MLB
    • Red_Dragon

      I'd say it's more of a balance. If you don't have both it'll show in the playoffs. Granted you might be able to get by with a defense if your pitching is extremely good (starters and bullpen).

      You know what ticks me off about Barry Bonds is that he didn't need it. He didn't need to cheat. He was already going to be one of the greatest ever. He was a great hitter as was. With the juice it just made him God-like.

    • Again, setting aside the cheating scandals...

      He hasn't broken any individual records: Those all belong to Peyton Manning. Granted, Manning has benefited from Hall of Fame Wide Receivers, but nonetheless, he has the records. Even if Tom Brady passes him up, it will only be due to longevity. Since you're an Eagles fan, you probably noticed Donovan McNabb had a better Super Bowl game than Tom Brady in the 2003-2004 Super Bowl (which was the first Super Bowl I watched by the way). Tom Brady was just lucky than Adam Vinatieri made a clutch kick at the end of the game. As I said: It's a TEAM sport. Tom Brady can't make "comebacks", and clutch drives without a supporting cast. Obviously, his teams aren't "subpar" if they are going to the playoffs. Your team can't win five Super Bowls in a 16 year span being "subpar." With your logic, I guess Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino?

    • @Red_Dragon I agree, Barry Bonds was probably going to hit around 600 Home Runs without cheating. However, why do people excuse Tom Brady's cheating scandals, but Barry Bonds is scorned as the "devil"? Neither one of them had 100 percent physical evidence against them, so you can't use that excuse either.

    • Show All
  • Other_Tommy_Wiseau
    no one says defense wins games... people say it wins championships, which is generally true. good defense travels. more importantly, defense in sports almost always has the advantage over offense. offense has way more variables, especially in sports like football where elements play a role in how you can catch, throw and make cuts. in basketball, it's more about playing a rhythm. players and teams go cold for stretches, so you can't rely on offense all the time. and when you face players now, they're virtually unguardable. however, if you can provide any defense over dudes like harden, the alphabet, ad, westbrook, curry or lebron and make others make plays, you have a shit ton better chance than trying to outscore the best players in the world, like when klay thompson went straight god mode and scored 37 in a quarter. with hockey or lax, everyone knows a great goalie can neutralize any team, no matter how many shots on goal you have. and baseball is baseball. a person hitting 25% is considered really good.
    • "people say it wins championships, which is generally true.."

      Is this true? Aside from cheating scandals I won't get into, why do the Patriots have a current dynasty right now in the NFL? Even though they've had a top ten defense in the years they've won the Super Bowl, they are still a more offensive team than defensive.

      In the MLB, most of the teams who have won recently haven't been defensive caliber teams at all. Just doing some light research, the 2012 Giants were ATROCIOUS on the field, and were still able to sweep the World Series away from the Tigers.

      I'm not sure about the NBA, or NHL, but in baseball, and football, it's not true.

    • I wouldn’t call the patriots a current dynasty given that they’ve fluked their way to their last 2 rings on the 2 dumbest play calls in Super Bowl history. Meanwhile, they won their 1st 3 on all time great defense. The other dynasties all had alltime great defense. Even the ravens won with Trent dilfer. Moreover, if you want to surmise this is a dynasty, note that they won on 2 defensive plays, not offensive plays. On top of that, they lost this past 1 on giving up 35+ points and not making a defensive play after defensive ply (ie, the philly special).

      Well, baseball is more of an anomoly than anything else cause the metrics haven’t changed. What you failed to mention in baseball that the trend in baseball is that there are alltime high strikeouts, all time low playable balls and alltime low extra base hits in the mlb. This is because teams/players are jacking the ball than playing the ball.

    • But the way modern baseball is played is clearly giving pitching the advantage. It’s the same thing in basketball. It’s this version of the 3pt line and the death of the midrange shot (like a line drive, is considered the worst shot/option in their sport).

      Also, I forgot to mention that in the last few Super Bowls (at least 5), it was either the better defensive team that won (Peyton noodle arm vs cams offense) or made the game winning play (patriots failing to drive down the field on the last drive).

    • Show All
  • Liam_Hayden
    I especially loved the argument about Brady. I mean if we base it on professional football championships by a QB it could easily be argued that Otto Graham's ten championship games and seven wins in ten seasons is the evidence that he is the "true" GOAT.
  • Wizard-of-bras
    Championships are a team accomplishment. If you’re trying to figure out who’s a better player, I don’t think that statistic should be used. Does anybody actually think bill russel is better than Michael Jordan or LeBron? He does have more championships, right?
    • I don't follow basketball, but I have heard people tell me that Bill Russel is the best NBA player of all time because of his rings.

    • Yeah that’s a load of horse shit lol. All it means was that he played on the better and more cohesive teams

    • Right. It's just common sense, but so many people use this flawed "rings" argument.

  • NYCQuestions1976
    Mike Piazza was a great hitter who happened to catch. In his era alone, I would take Pudge Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, and Jason Varitek (makes me sick to admit) over Piazza.

    As a New York Giants fan, love the picture of Tom Brady. I'll take Joe Montana over Brady. Montana never turned the ball over in the Super Bowl.

    Ramiro Mendoza also has 5 rings as a reliever (1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 with Yankees, 2004 with Red Sox).

    I admit I waiver back-and-forth between the "rings/championships" argument.

    Nice Take. I could be here for hours. I got to get my son to bed.
    • I agree, because Mike Piazza was a mediocre defensive Catcher. I just said he was ARGUABLY the best Catcher. However, Yogi Berra isn't automatically the best Catcher of all time due to him winning ten World Series rings, and that's my point.

      Even as a Giants fan, you have to admit the Giants are the luckiest team in NFL history. They beat the Broncos in 1986-1987 when nobody thought John Elway would choke. They beat the Bills in the 1990-1991 Super Bowl on a Bill's missed kick. They took out the 18-0 Patriots in 2007-2008 mainly due to the helmet catch by David Tyree. They took out the Patriots in 2011-2012 with a 9-7 record (negative point differential for the season, mind you), largely due to a lucky catch by Mario Manningham. And their road to the Super Bowl was lucky too. That team was born to be lucky.

      Don't get me wrong, I loved seeing the Giants take out the Patriots twice. But they are very very very lucky, and Eli Manning is a mediocre Quarterback.

    • I take Peyton Manning in the regular season, Eli Manning in the post season. The runs he went on leading to those two Super Bowls (6 wins, 5 on the road against higher seeds) were on a level higher than his average regular season play. Peyton had a habit of playing below his abilities in the post season.

    • Even when Eli Manning plays at his best, I'm not sure if it compares to Peyton Manning at his worst.

  • Emma_240302
    Lol I’m showing this to my dad xD
  • CT_CD
    Cam Newton is the GOAT
    • You really think so? I mean, he's a great Quarterback, but to call him the best of all time-given the sport began in 1920-is it bit of a bold claim.

    • CT_CD

      No. I just said that because I'm a Panthers fan. He's probably one of the best running quarterbacks of all time though.

    • I would agree there. Cam Newton is an athletic beast on the field, and the currently most athletic Quarterback.

      I would say Michael Vick is the best running Quarterback of all time though. The guy ran better than most Running Backs lol.

    • Show All
  • Straight4wd
    If all else fails, blame the refs.
    • This is another flawed argument in football (and I'm assuming basketball, and hockey). Although in some rare cases, the referees can be blamed.

  • Anonymous
    Most annoying argument I’ve heard was between a spurs fan and a gunner fighting over wether or not özil’s eyes were too big or not.
  • Anonymous